John C. Wright's Blog, page 2

Apropos of my previous column, a reader with the rather tenebrous yet archangelic name of Dark Seraphim writes as follows. His words are so clear and passionate on a topic where dungheaps of obscurantism have been erected that I quote him here in full and without comment:

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

A rather unintentionally unserious conversation on another thread (the gentleman seemed to be arguing that that were my legal and social inferiors with no right to argue with me — a somewhat elliptical point of view to take) nonetheless intentionally brought up a deeply serious point, which I would like to address here.

I apologize for the inadequacy of my thought here, but we are now treading in deep philosophical waters. Regard this, dear reader, rather as a starting point for cogitation, rather than a settled and well articulated theory.

Someone asked me what is meant by freedom?

The context concerned political freedom only; of other type or other nuances of the word, I do not address.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

A rather unintentionally unserious conversation on another thread (the gentleman seemed to be arguing that that were my legal and social inferiors with no right to argue with me — a somewhat elliptical point of view to take) nonetheless intentionally brought up a deeply serious point, which I would like to address here.

I apologize for the inadequacy of my thought here, but we are now treading in deep philosophical waters. Regard this, dear reader, rather as a starting point for cogitation, rather than a settled and well articulated theory.

Someone asked me what is meant by freedom?

The context concerned political freedom only; of other type or other nuances of the word, I do not address.

Most philosopher define freedom either in terms of what most and best satisfied the inner nature of man reaching for completeness, or defines freedom by the external nature of the constraints imposed by coercion upon him. I think both definitions inadequate, and propose an approach not often seen: to define freedom by the duties it allows one to carry out.

The nature of the topic requires a description rather than a definition.

Freedom is the condition when a man’s ability to carry out his natural duties to his civilization are not curtailed by the coercion of the state, nor by the violence of invasion, nor by the trespass or fraud by his fellows.

Freedom is when the laws permit and encourage him to carry out those natural duties rather than the reverse.

Natural duties are those which are his merely by being a rational creature possessed of free will. They can be excused or curtailed by incapacity, or as just punishment in retaliation for a crime.

Artificial duties are those assumed by contract or covenant, as joining the army or getting married.

For example: the health and wellbeing of civilization imposes a duty that men go armed, to protect themselves from invasion, trespass, and tyranny.

Indeed, it is primarily (albeit not solely) for this reason civil societies are justified at all. They are justified primarily for our mutual protection, albeit justified more profoundly thereafter for our mutual good, that each might encourage his neighbor to virtue. Men come together to preserve their lives and protect the fruits of their labor, they stay together for the sake of the good life, love of neighbor, and the joys of mutual society.

When a government seeks to deprive its citizens generally of their arms, and not just a rebellious province, it become destructive of the very ends for which it was formed: this is an imposition on liberty.

The touchstone of monarchy is the inequality of the ranks of society, as a class or caste system. If the class system is real and not merely nominal (which it is, for example, in Modern England. They are no more a monarchy than we are a republic) then the nobles enjoy a sole right to bear arms.

The inequality is the prime imposition on the civic duties of the lower classes, for it deprives them of the ability to carry out the duties of seeing to the common good which is the natural duty of anyone living in a commonwealth: a disarmed common class is grossly hindered in the efforts, as individuals, of fending off or killing criminals, and as a group in fending off or killing tyrants.

Hence, for example, the right to bear arms is a liberty, for without it the duty to use force to uphold the social order, which is incumbent on every individual, his hindered by fear of retaliation from the government, allegedly the organ given primary charge of upholding the social order.

A similar example is the freedom of speech and assembly or the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. These, obviously, are dead letter without the right to bear arms, for then they are exercised only at the sufferance of the magistrate.

If this description of liberty is unclear, please ask, and I will answer as best I may.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

I made a comment, which frankly I thought to be unexceptional, almost routine, that I would rather die than doff my cap to a king, since I am a Virginian.

To my infinite surprise, several readers wrote in expressing puzzlement, asking for clarification, wondering if I meant this as a general rule, or only for myself. Would I actually endanger my family by defying the sovereign person had I lived in the Middle Ages? Other readers said monarchy was a respectable form of government, or asked about living under King Arthur of Camelot or King Elessar Telcontar of Gondor, who were good kings, and so on.

I am happy to find so many monarchists here on my website: I would have thought that school of political philosophy deader than the Dodo bird.

My answer to you all is written beneath the great seal of my commonwealth: Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Today’s must-read article is by Milo Yiannopoulos

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/

It is about time someone mentioned all these scientific findings in public.

… I can prove with the power of science that religious folk were right all along and that science has a little-known but undeniable Roman Catholic bias.

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES YOU FAT

Let’s start with the grossest form: injectable birth control. IT MAKES YOU FAT. A 2009 study from the University of Texas found that women using DMPA gain an average of 11 pounds over three years, a 3-4 per cent increase.

Worse, this was abdominal fat, which is linked to cardiovascular disease, strokes and diabetes. 25 per cent of women on DMPA experienced “significant and potentially dangerous body composition changes.” Yes, that’s right. They became dangerously fat. On the bright side, they’re able to stop the injections at that point because being fat is the best form of birth control anyone could ask for.

So in other words, your birth control injection will add on pounds that will prevent the injection you really want — of man meat.  This, in turn, will lead to depression and excessive ice-cream consumption, which adds on more pounds. Eventually, you’ll find yourself in what medical professionals call “a vicious cycle” but what I call FFAS, or “Female Forever Alone Syndrome.”

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES YOUR VOICE UNSEXY

It’s not just your body that will get less sexy. Your voice will lose its seductiveness too. Women sound most attractive to men when their estrogen levels are high, and their progesterone levels are low. Birth control lowers the former and raises the latter, making women sound as erotically appealing as Bruce Jenner giving a croaky acceptance speech.

If you think the man of your dreams will be eager to meet you after that first Skype call where you sound like a lumberjack, keep dreaming. Men trust their senses and will create a mental picture of you long before you meet. Do you really want to be labelled a pity lay, betrayed by your whacked-out hormones? No you do not.

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES YOU JIGGLE WRONG

Women on the Pill don’t look right and don’t talk right. What could be worse? Well, they can’t jiggle correctly either. A study from the University of Göttingen in 2012 gauged the attractiveness of female dancers. Men judged fertile women as more attractive dancers — and even walkers — than women in their non-fertile phase.

The researchers speculated that estrogen fluctuations during a woman’s fertile period can affect muscle, ligament and tendon strength, leading to subtle differences in movement. Fertile gals, in other words, have all the right moves.

The rougher elements in society will talk about a woman’s posterior — or mine — and describe the way a quarter might bounce off it. Birth control’s estrogen enroachment is liable to have that coin ricocheting off into someone’s eye or just slowly sinking in (see cottage cheese, below).

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES YOU CHOOSE THE WRONG MATES 

It’s already established that going on the Pill makes you less attractive to men. But it also affects who you’re attracted to as well. Healthy, fertile women seek out men who are genetically different to them. Women on the Pill do the opposite, seeking out men who are closer to their own tribe. That’s right, ladies: the Pill turns you into Lannisters. I understand lusting after close relations might be a positive thing in some locations, such as West Virginia, or Norfolk, so YMMV on this one.

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES YOU UNSEXY ALL THE TIME

Don’t be fooled into thinking that birth control only makes you stupid and unattractive during your fertile periods.

He goes on in like vein. Milo does not mention groundwater contamination from the hormonal chemicals passing through the artificially sterile woman’s system. Some scientists think this may account for the rise of autism and same-sex attraction and other biochemical malfunctions in recent generations.

All the sexy female and feminine Catholic girls in my circle, of course, have heard about these scientific studies, but of course they are too busy raising their five to ten children to have the time to write articles.

And the Catholic moms I know are all very attractive, and did not lose their hourglass figures after having a child.

(And they are better educated than you, because they did not go to government-run public school, nor get degrees in Grievance Studies. And their menfolk are more manly than yours. Just sayin’.)

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Today’s must-read essay is from 5 years ago, but still timely:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

I hope I will be forgiven for quoting major sections of his essay, because the man is brilliant and crystal clear.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Below are choice excerpts from a column by Mike Vanderboegh, originally printed two years before the close of the Second Millennium. Read the whole thing here: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/vanderboegh-classic-what-i-have-learned.html

From the Liberty Pole

June, 1999

by Mike Vanderboegh

As an amateur historian of this sad century whose time is almost up, I would like to reflect upon six lessons I have learned in my studies. Folks who wish to live free and prosperous in the next century would do well to understand the failures of the past.

LESSON NO. 1: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and take you someplace you do not want to go because of who you are or what you think — kill him. If you can, kill the politician who sent him. You will likely die anyway, and you will be saving someone else the same fate. …

LESSON NO. 2: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms — kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.

LESSON NO. 3: If a bureaucrat tells you that he must know if you have a firearm so he can put your name on a list for the common good, or wants to issue you an identity card so that you be more easily identified — tell him to go to hell. …

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

I have no comment to make, just a column to recommend.

https://retiredmustang62.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/its-just-too-much/

I’m angry. I’m angry that my country has been attacked. I’m angry that innocent people were killed and maimed by at least two other people who were, as far as we can tell, dedicated to a death cult (ISIS). I’m angry there’s a real (albeit relatively small) possibility similar people could not only attack my country again, they could do so in a way that directly and immediately threatens my family. But there’s more.

I’m angry that my government, in the person of the President of the United States, has chosen to dance around the question of why the two now dead murderers chose to commit their atrocity. I’m angry that there is such mealy mouthed discussion about the two murderers. Instead of plain and direct speech, we have been subjected to countless references to them “possibly” or “maybe” having become radicalized or that their actions were those of terrorists. Really? The two parents who abandoned their 6 month old daughter “may” have become radicalized? The two who had multiple homemade bombs on R/C toys in their apartment “may” have had a motive that extended beyond an argument at the place one of them was employed? That one of the two appears to have lied on her visa application “may” suggest she was radicalized and might have even come to this country for the specific purpose of committing some horror? Attempting to destroy their digital tracks “may” indicate this was a terror attack? Wearing cameras to film the carnage and pledging allegiance to the leader of the death cult that is ISIS “might” suggest radicalization? Again, really? But there’s more.

I’m angry that a representative of my government, the Attorney General of the United States, would be so vile as to refer to the events in San Bernardino as in any way “wonderful.” I’m angry that she would be so disgusting as to suggest she is more concerned about violence toward Muslims in general than she is terror attacks against this country. I’m angry she would even remotely suggest citizens exercising their First Amendment rights might potentially subject them to the full wrath and fury of the U.S. government. And yes, I’m angry some of my fellow citizens apparently want to paint all Muslims with the same brush. But there’s more.

I’m angry so many on the left view this as an opportunity to attempt to deprive their fellow citizens of any reasonable attempt to defend themselves should they ever be in such a situation. I’m angry they would suggest those who don’t embrace what the left has decided is the only answer to violence are somehow unconcerned with the violence and its victims.

I’m angry they would either forget or ignore the fact that the Declaration’s “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” cannot exist in the absence of a way to defend them. I’m angry they would pretend “the security of a free state” is in no way endangered when one or more assholes chooses to unleash their terror on the unsuspecting, the unprepared and the innocent. I’m angry they would pretend that same security is not threatened when one or more other assholes break into someone’s house with the willingness or even the intent to do harm to those who live there. I’m angry they would suggest that perhaps it’s reasonable to prohibit the possession of firearms by those whose names are on the same watchlist so many on the left have rightly decried as unconstitutional. I’m angry they would deny those folks, who’ve been neither convicted nor even charged with a crime, the right to defend their lives and the lives of their families. I’m angry they can so effectively and callously declare those folks lives, and the lives of their family members, are worth less than the lives of the rest of us.

Bravo, Amen, and by all means read the whole thing.

Addendum:

Allow me to explain the allusion. Herodotus reports that Leonidas I, leader of the Spartans, upon receiving a command from the Persian King to lay down their arms, returned the typically laconic Lacedaemonian  reply: “Having come, take thou them.”  Note that the phrase is in the second person singular. Leonidas is asking the Persian Great King personally to take the weapons from the hands of the Spartans.

The Texans returned a similar brief defiance to General Santa Anna when the Spanish demanded the surrender of their cannon.

On a related note, Dallas will not be Paris.

I love the mom with the baby toting the firearm. Any of you young ladies who want to be equal to a man: Get an equalizer. Running to the men in government to reward you equality as a gift, nay, as a token of their wooing your vote is something real men would never do.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

I have never understood the appeal of John Rawls’ so called theory of justice which he examines in a book of the same name.

I read it in Law School, and it struck me then as now as amateurish, lazy, sloppy and sophomoric thinking about a deep subject men like Aristotle and Aquinas and even Hobbes had already examined with greater clarity and rigor. His is a second rate mind.

John Rawls’ theory was that justice consists of considering in the abstract from behind ‘the veil of ignorance’, that is, without knowing your rank in society, what kind of society would be best.

His conclusion was that a modern socialist welfare state would take care of the lower ranks well enough so that if you, not knowing where you would be placed in the ranking, want to make prudent provision for your own wellbeing, you would support a welfare-state socialism out of your own self interest.

A minor flaw here is simply to assume that the man behind the veil of ignorance would act in his own self interest rather than in the interest of the society whose ranking system he is being asked to decide. An ancient Jew might want a king, for example, because he honestly sees that kingship is needed to organize his people against the surrounding enemies, without ever once hoping he himself would get the job.

More to the point, the crippling flaw in this theory is that Rawls assumes by hypothesis that the positions in the social rank are arbitrary.

He has the hypothetical person deciding in which society to live make the decision ‘behind the veil of ignorance’ that is, not knowing his own capacities or merits or birth.

He assumes, without every examining the assumption, that there is no justice in the ranking, and can be no justice. The one thing the veil of ignorance removes is your knowledge of what you did to earn or to deserve your rank.

In other words, Rawls asks the reader to decide about how society should be ranked without saying, or even hinting, what the ranking is based on.

If the ranking is based on birth, as it is in a class society of commoners and nobles and royalty, Rawls argument might almost make sense for someone more afraid of being born a commoner than eager to be born royalty, and unwilling to take the risk on the throw of the dice of fate.

Because of cause Alpha types would always vote for a birth-class society because the prospect of being royalty to them is worth the risk of being common. Gamma types, like Rawls, base their thinking on envy, and the envious would rather eliminate the royalty altogether than run the risk of being born a commoner.

But if the crippling flaw is taken away, and the society is not just a choice between a monarchy or a socialism, then Rawls’ theory is reduced to nonsense.

An American would always choice a free society over the soft injustice of the Welfare state or the hard injustice of Monarchy. The American would say, “Stuff your welfare bullshit. Make the rules JUST, give me liberty, and I do not care where I might be in when the veil of ignorance is lifted, and I find myself poor or rich. Give me liberty, and if I am poor I will make myself rich.”

The one thing Rawls leaves out of his theory of justice is justice. The one option never explored is the option of leaving every man to enjoy the fruits of his labors in peace, each owning what he earned.

Instead his discussion is about how to divvy up the loot among pirates, that is, how to distribute unjustly acquired goods that fall upon you by happenstance, luck, or whatnot.

This flaw in Rawls can be made clear if we look at the analogy of a law court. Instead of the jury deciding the case on the merits, a veil of ignorance is placed on the murderer, on his victim’s widow, and on the judge, and the three of them get to vote on how sever the punishment shall be without knowing if they are the guilty party. By the John Rawls theory, each man out of self interest should vote for the punishment to be minor, or to have no punishment at all, because there is one chance in three that he himself is the murderer. By that logic, no one would vote to live in a society with a death penalty, because when the veil lifts, they might be the murder.

But in real life is it not a matter of random chance whether you are a murderer, and the decision about the death penalty should not be based on self interest, but on what is a fair recompense for the magnitude of the crime. In reality, the decision should be made not based on self interest but what is best for serving the interests of justice.

Men who do not take self interest as their primary motive in voting for the laws would always vote for the death penalty, and run the risk that when the veil of ignorance is lifted, he would go to his deserved hanging without complaint because he would deserve it.

The idea that Rawls is attempting to assassinate with his argument is the idea that liberty is unfair, but he does this without ever once mentioning liberty. He speak only of the advantages of birth and happenstance, as if the prosperous and successful men in America got there by dumb luck.

He is British, of course, and the only thing they have ever known are Monarchy and Welfare-statism.

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.

Do they want to live?

This is from Frontpage Mag, an interview with one Rima Greene. She is one of the (alas, far too few) Jews of the Left who recognize the growing anti-Semitism of the Left.

She had been a member in the 1970’s of a rural all-women community of socialist feminists, but was shocked upon her return from a trip to Israel to discover that her feminist and lesbian friends favored the Arabs over the Israelis, even though Israel is the only nation in that part of the world where women can be free, and homosexuality is legal.

She found herself reduced to the status of an unperson, because the god of the Progressives is a jealous god, and no man can be Jewish, and have loyalties or love for his home, and also serve the Cause.

Please read the whole thing. It is fascinating and heartbreaking all at once.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/01/a-leftist-feminist%E2s-journey-out-of-the-political-faith/

When I was part of the Left, I thought “evil” and “enemy” were outdated concepts brought on by indoctrinated mental patterns. When I was at a peace camp in Portugal – a German peace community – I met the people who’d paraded through Israel with the banner: WE REFUSE TO BE ENEMIES. This is new age thinking, that you can refuse reality and just keep going on your merry way.  We as Jews are targeted. We as infidel Americans are targeted. We are the ultimate prize as the Big Satan — although Jewish blood is the best for the West’s contemporary adversaries.

We do not grasp the mental universe of our enemies. Their obsession with our blood, their obsession with butchering us. They are like an army of vampires. They actually want to suck our blood. Especially Jewish blood. We in the West have not a clue. They do not just want to kill us any old way. Poison gas will not do. They want to spill our blood.  I could never make this stuff up. That is what I was trying to sort out with the Daniel Pearl incident, but my friend tried to put a stop to my thinking by calling me a racist.

[…]

When I started really understanding that Israel is in continual danger because of a theological commitment to destroy us, and that includes me, as a target, my body got it, my creatural body that fights for its survival with everything it has. That is a missing piece on the Left. My old buddy from high school, a famous Jewish anti-Zionist academic, would rather die in a plane terror incident than have “racial profiling.” I said, “It could save your life.” He said, “I don’t care. It’s racist. I don’t care.” It was a kind of petulant: “I don’t care.” It’s like a three-year-old’s outlook.

[…]

On the Left, with the “universal” values supposedly which transcend the need of the Jewish people to survive, there’s an ideology that Jews are selfish for wanting to survive together, as a collective. It is raw naked anti-Semitism.

My comment: The central tenet of the cultic and hysterical mental disorder called Leftism is what I call ‘the unreality principle.’ This is the principle, baldly stated, that reality is bad and unreality is good, therefore unreality is real.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.